← Back to Search
New Guidelines To Evaluate The Response To Treatment In Solid Tumors.
P. Therasse, S. Arbuck, E. Eisenhauer, J. Wanders, R. S. Kaplan, L. Rubinstein, J. Verweij, M. van Glabbeke, A. V. van Oosterom, M. Christian, S. Gwyther
Published 2000 · Medicine
Referenced 1 time by Citationsy Users
Download PDFAnalyze on Scholarcy
Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
This paper references
cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207–14
S Green (1981)
SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals
Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man : comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thio phos - phoamide
CG Zubrod (1960)
Children's Cancer Study Group
Appendix Iv Participants
Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: Comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide
C. Zubrod (1960)
land): World Health Organization Offset Publication No
AB Miller (1979)
The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
Tau Fluvalinate (1997)
M S Vergote
Terenziani, National Cancer Institute
Kingston); T. Uscinowicz, Health Canada, Bureau of Pharmaceutical Assessment (Ottawa); I. Tannock
International Breast Cancer Study Group and Istituto Europeo di
Scottish Cancer Therapy Network United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research (Nottingham); K. Noever, Bio-Imaging Technologies
ON); D. Warr, Ontario Cancer Institute/Princess Margaret Hospital (Toronto); P. Liati, South Europe New Drugs Organization
Additional comments were received from the following
M G Zurlo
Chronic Dis 1960;11:7–33
J phoamide (1960)
NOTE Manuscript received June
Reporting results of cancer treatment
A. Miller (1981)
WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment
M. Palmer (1982)
Historical and methodological developments in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute.
E. Gehan (1990)
WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment
R. Hunter (1980)
Eisenhauer , National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (Kingston); S. Gwyther, East Surrey Hospital (Redhill, U.K.); and J. Wanders, New Drug Development Office Oncology
Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thio phosphoamide
Cg Zubrod (1960)
Magnitude of time to disease progression disagreements when differences existed* No. of patients % (of 234, see above) No. of progressors with differing progression dates 19 8
Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte contre le Cancer
Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement.
K. James (1999)
IN); A. Trotti, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
F B Stehman
A. Satterfield (1938)
根治的前立腺全摘術における神経移植 : Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centerの経験
大堀 理 (2000)
The Pediatric Oncology Group
B. Leventhal (1989)
T. Walsh (1969)
This paper is referenced by
Central thoracic lesions treated with hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy.
M. Milano (2009)
Clinical significance of performing 18F-FDG PET on patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a summary of a Japanese multicenter study
T. Kaneta (2009)
Cancer of unknown primary site in which tumor marker-oriented chemotherapy was effective and pancreatic cancer was finally confirmed at autopsy.
K. Ohtsubo (2009)
Noncytotoxic suramin as a chemosensitizer in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study.
M. A. Villalona-Calero (2008)
A phase I study of T900607 given once every 3 weeks in patients with advanced refractory cancers; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC–CTG) IND 130
K. Gelmon (2005)
Report of two protocol planned interim analyses in a randomised multicentre phase III study comparing capecitabine with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin with cisplatin in patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer receiving ECF
K. Sumpter (2005)
Epithelial ovarian cancer: a review of current management.
A. Guppy (2005)
Expression Level of Orotate Phosphoribosyltransferase mRNA in Colorectal Cancer : Correlation with Clinicopathological Factors and Clinical Efficacy of 5-fluorouracil-based Chemotherapy
H. Ishida (2005)
Gene profile and response to treatment.
J. Smeds (2005)
Targeting multiple signal transduction pathways in lung cancer.
A. Adjei (2005)
Empfehlungen zur Bewertung der Tumorremission
K. Jordan (2006)
Increased HER2 gene copy number is associated with response to gefitinib therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients.
F. Cappuzzo (2005)
Novel kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma: Progressive development of static agents
A. Desai (2006)
Combining gemcitabine and capecitabine in patients with advanced biliary cancer: a phase II trial.
J. Knox (2005)
A multicentre phase II study on gefitinib in taxane- and anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer
G. Minckwitz (2004)
Erlotinib usage after prior treatment with gefitinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A clinical perspective and review of published literature.
Navneet Singh (2014)
Efficacy of taxotere, thalidomide, and prednisolone in patients with hormone-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.
H. Rezvani (2012)
Phase I trial of dose-escalated cisplatin with concomitant cetuximab and hyperfractionated-accelerated radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.
T. Kuhnt (2010)
Treatment rationale and study design for the pointbreak study: a randomized, open-label phase III study of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed/bevacizumab versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV
J. Patel (2009)
Response assessment in metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab and bevacizumab: CT tumor size and density as markers for response and outcome
M. Nishino (2014)
Peritoneal Tuberculosis: A Retrospective Review of 20 Cases and Comparison With Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma
C. Choi (2010)
Personalized Medicine: Development of a Predictive Computational Model for Personalized Therapeutic Interventions
N. Kureshi (2013)
Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a hellenic oncology research group randomized phase III study.
A. Karampeazis (2011)
Phase 2 trial of preoperative irinotecan plus cisplatin and conformal radiotherapy, followed by surgery for esophageal cancer
J. Knox (2010)
Which factors predict bowel complications in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer being treated with bevacizumab?
D. Richardson (2010)
Management of advanced lung cancer in resource-constrained settings: a perspective from India
Navneet Singh (2012)
Comparison of tumor response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma
J. Edeline (2012)
Prise en charge des cancers réfractaires de la thyroïde
M. Schlumberger (2011)
Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma
A. Forner (2009)
Molecular Characteristics Predict Clinical Outcomes: Prospective Trial Correlating Response to the EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Gefitinib with the Presence of Sensitizing Mutations in the Tyrosine Binding Domain of the EGFR Gene
N. Rizvi (2011)
Progression‐free survival: Does a correlation with survival justify its role as a surrogate clinical endpoint?
A. Becker (2014)
Phase II Study of Biweekly Plitidepsin as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelium
H. Dumez (2009)See more